Crossbows

[jonphilp]

The Chinese used both crossbow & Bow although the army lists some times force the use of one or the other for different periods. They also used repeating crossbows in the later periods which should improve the rate of fire against unarmoured infantry. At least they have the same range as Bow unlike Slings which is open to debate. As often said the rules are a bit abstract in this area but it is in the interest of running a good rule set

[DrQuahog]

Without getting into specific statistics, in practice the relative uselessness, relative to bow, of crossbow vs most foot does indeed seem to fail the 'gut feeling' test.

I've never played them, but have participated with them in large multiplayer games, and would think that to show up at a tourney with a crossbow style Han army, and find that you are in big trouble against, say Gauls because your shooting is ineffective doesn't pass the 'sniff test'.

I'm no expert on The East, but I doubt that the Han's opponents were largely extra heavies.

[ShrubMiK]

Perhaps dissenters to the current rules should make some specific suggestions what they think the POAs should look like? They might find them to be just as debatable and subject to smell tests as those in the current rules

I'm sure this is not intended, but from some of the comments here I'm wondering if people are expecting crossbow to be better than bow against the most heavily armoured targets, and equal to bow against all other battle-line troops? If so, hello crossbows the new uber weapon.

Ironically, you probably wouldn't expect to see too many Gauls or similar in the open tourney format, there's a significant opinion around here that if your MF/HF are not armoured you are going to be easy meat.

And there's a strange thing - this thread started with a complaint that crossbows were not recognised by the rules as displaying the necessary performance against armour, now we seem to have morphed to saying that crossbows are not showing the necessary performance against unarmoured troops. Hmmmm.

Which makes em question the relevance of this statement:
>I'm no expert on The East, but I doubt that the Han's opponents were largely extra heavies.

[philqw78]

If you have thousands upon thousands of people to train quickly the crossbow is the weapon of choice. Its far easier to use.
Although I find it difficult to believe that a weapon that could fire 8 effective rounds per minute would be superceded by early firearms, which in the 19th century only managed 3 rpm as an effective RoF.

[DrQuahog]

An oddly 'stream of consciousness' sort of reply.
I get it that you seem to be personally offended that my impression is that crossbows don't feel right, being undervalued versus many infantry opponents.
But, other than 'my rules set right or wrong' I didn't quite follow the arguments.

Perhaps dissenters to the current rules should make some specific suggestions what they think the POAs should look like? They might find them to be just as debatable and subject to smell tests as those in the current rules
I'm sure this is not intended, but from some of the comments here I'm wondering if people are expecting crossbow to be better than bow against the most heavily armoured targets, and equal to bow against all other battle-line troops? If so, hello crossbows the new uber weapon.
Ironically, you probably wouldn't expect to see too many Gauls or similar in the open tourney format, there's a significant opinion around here that if your MF/HF are not armoured you are going to be easy meat.
And there's a strange thing - this thread started with a complaint that crossbows were not recognised by the rules as displaying the necessary performance against armour, now we seem to have morphed to saying that crossbows are not showing the necessary performance against unarmoured troops. Hmmmm.
Which makes em question the relevance of this statement:
>I'm no expert on The East, but I doubt that the Han's opponents were largely extra heavies.

[ethan]

If you have thousands upon thousands of people to train quickly the crossbow is the weapon of choice. Its far easier to use.
Although I find it difficult to believe that a weapon that could fire 8 effective rounds per minute would be superceded by early firearms, which in the 19th century only managed 3 rpm as an effective RoF.

I think there is a lot of room for debate on the effectiveness of bows vs. crossbows (vs. firearms). We do know that firearms eventually win out...

I think it is worth thinking in FoG terms about what are the "archtypes" we are going to use to model the crossbow (and any troops really)?

I think there are three seperate areas of debate. First, what are the records of battlefield effectiveness. Second, what are the economics of each wewapon and finally, what is the actually effectiveness in a physics sense. I think you ultimately have to take some combination of these factors and make a call, several reasonable calls are possible you just have to make one.

Anyway, here are the major "themes" I know of regarding bows, xbows and to a lesser extent guns. If anyone else has something to add I would be curious to hear it.

I can think of four major threads on historical Xbow effectiveness.

1- Italian mercenary crossbows total failure at Crecy (I think it was Crecy, one of the big three 100YW battles). This is usually cited as evidence taht Xbows are to be blunt "cr@p." On the other side are arguments that it wasn't much of a test given that the Italians didn't have their pavises, marched all night to get there, had wet bows, the French commanders are idiots, etc."

2- Crossbows don't seem to figure in many accounts of European battles otherwise. Everyone seems to agree they were pretty useful for siege warfare, which is what most medieval European warfare was really about, but if they were worthwhile then why don't we ever really read abou them? Often goes along with the Crecy example. OTOH, crossbows seem to survive in field armies for quite some time and accounts of battles tend to only feature the derring do of the nobility in most periods...

3- Crusader armies, especially Later Crusaders, seem to have contained an awful lot of crossbows and there are often reports that they were pretty effective and possibly feared by the various Islamic armies the crusaders faced. This is usually combined with the injunction against using them against fellow christians and the Anna Komnena (I think) quote about how terrible they were.

4- China seems have made extensive use of them and I believe they were thought to be effective against the various barbarians on horseback they fought. China also seems to have used less powerful xbows than the Europeans and gone back and forth at various times with bows vs xbows.

Then there are various arguments around the economics of these weapons:

1- Good bows (i.e. longbows and Eastern composite bows) are difficult to use effectively and the Eastern bows are expensive to make. Arrows are expensive ammunition. So good archers are difficult to come by.

2- Crossbows are also fairly expensive and also consume relatively expensive ammunition. Using a crossbow is really simple and people can be trained to proficient relatively easily.

3 - Handguns are expensive to make but I believe their ammunition is thought to be dirt cheap which I have read was one of their initial advantages over crossbows. Also very easy to train people to use them.

Physical effectiveness:

1- Bows are generally the least effective of the three. They have the least aerodynamic projective that tends to waste a lot of energy vibrating after leaving the bow. Truly dangerous arrow fire is pretty short-ranged, even from longbows and high end Eastern composites. Witness various accounts of Crusaders in quilted jacks looking like "porcupines" when shot at by Islamic composite bows. Longbows could penetrate serious armor, but only at short ranges.

2- Crossbows are more effecient than bows and can deliver more punch at longer range, with less rate of fire of course.

3- By the time you get to serious guns they are pretty much the most deadly projectile at longer ranges than crossbows or bows. They also tend to inflict much more incapacitating injuries when you are hit.

[Luddite]

Right. So in one game your opponent threw really good dice and now you want to change the rules because of it?

Eight dice against a BG of four cavalry should result in four hits - that is a 50/50 (give or take) chance of disrupting and a 33% chance of losing a base. Over four rounds, they should be a base down and disrupted.

If this didn't happen then dice rolls weren't in your favour. That isn't a good reason to change the rules.

Indeed they should have been down but they weren't. Sometimes that sort of thing happens in wargames, such are the whims of the dice.

FYI they were my cavalry facing a line of crossbowmen.

And no, one bad result for my opponent does not result me in throwing my dummies out of the pram (i haven't done anything like that since i foolishly dabbled into Flames of War(hammer)).

My queries and musings have been about the apprent ineffectiveness of crossbows against armour. After all, as i said, they seem even to be outperformed by slings!

I'm not advocating a change in the rules, merely asking for insights as to why they are set as they are?

Why are longbows the 'uber weapon'? They even beat crossbows in the armour penetration stakes, when reconstructions have shown that over about 20 yards a longbow couldn't penetrate later medeival armour.


Anyway...I must say there have been some excellent contributions chaps!




ShrubMiK said:

'Perhaps dissenters to the current rules should make some specific suggestions what they think the POAs should look like?'


Well, i'm surprised that crossbows aren't at least as effective as longbows against armoured opponents.

Personally against lesser armoured opponents, i think their lower rate of fire is adequately covered in the current POAs.

[philqw78]

Well, i'm surprised that crossbows aren't at least as effective as longbows against armoured opponents.

Against heavily armoured they are as effective.
I assume its just where the authors decided to draw a line in the sand.
Base everything on a 4 to hit against the 'normal' target.
Then base stuff on the 'normal' weapon. Jav/sling/Bow
Then make exceptions
Longbows like bows but better against armour/HA.
XBow - slower RoF but if it can hit it can penetrate so armour makes no difference

Personally against lesser armoured opponents, i think their lower rate of fire is adequately covered in the current POAs.

The only change this statement recommends would make it easier to hit an armoured target than an unprotected one, or change LBow POA's to be the same as or worse than XBow against armour/HA.
POA Graduation in FoG is not very subtle

[grahambriggs]

If you have thousands upon thousands of people to train quickly the crossbow is the weapon of choice. Its far easier to use.
Although I find it difficult to believe that a weapon that could fire 8 effective rounds per minute would be superceded by early firearms, which in the 19th century only managed 3 rpm as an effective RoF.

I seem to remember reading that crossbows, even the heavy ones, started to have a problem penetrating well designed plate armour, which guns did not necessarily have. Plus the more powerful a crossbow, the more expensive it was - difficult to store the energy without wearing the bow out unless it's built properly with good steel.

Perhaps it was as simple as there was a phase when crossbows couldn't penetrate, so people started using guns and then focussed on developing those and the skills to make a good crossbow became rarer.

I recall that Wellington looked into reintroducing the longbow for use in the Peninsular war, but he discovered that it just wasn't practical. The slikkls to make the bows were rare by then and the lack of a lifetime of practice meant that people couldn't draw the weight.

[ShrubMiK]

Well DrQuahog, let me paraphrase for you.

I feel the current rules are about right, according to my preconceptions and prejudices.
I'm not at all offended if you disagree (isn't that a bit ad hominem? usually a bad sign when it comes to discussions)
But I too am finding it hard to follow exactly what is being claimed to be wrong, and how you and others are suggesting it should be put right.
Hence I'm looking for more specifics.

As for the "my rule set right or wrong" dig, I actually much prefer and far more frequently playDBMM, so I don't really have muchemptional capital invested in how effective crossbows are under FoG. We can go elsewhere and argue about whether crossbows should be rated Bw(S) if you like

Anyway, good response from Luddite, that was what I was looking for.

[ravenflight]

Without getting into specific statistics, in practice the relative uselessness, relative to bow, of crossbow vs most foot does indeed seem to fail the 'gut feeling' test.

I've never played them, but have participated with them in large multiplayer games, and would think that to show up at a tourney with a crossbow style Han army, and find that you are in big trouble against, say Gauls because your shooting is ineffective doesn't pass the 'sniff test'.

I'm no expert on The East, but I doubt that the Han's opponents were largely extra heavies.

Well, consider the options... against a Legionary they are exactly the same as a bow. Against most mounted they are exactly the same as bow. Against some mounted they are exactly the same as longbow. I would generally think that a bow is the superior option, but it really does depend on your army.

[ShrubMiK]

>repeating crossbows in the later periods which should improve the rate of fire against unarmoured infantry.

Correct me if I am wrong...I thought repeating crossbows existed quite early, i.e. considerably BC rather than AD. But what we are talking about there is light crossbows with low draw weight, and hence we're back to the trade off of good rate of fire = low armour penetration; high armour penetration equals low rate of fire. So unless troops habitually carried a crossbow of each type, you have to give them POAs that refelct the characteristics of the weapon the do carry.

[DrQuahog]

If talking about the medieval European crossbow as opposed to the Chinese type, it is in fact difficult to compare the crossbow to the bow, as opposed to crossbow vs. longbow, pike vs pilum etc. because when the crossbow and longbow were in use no one made extensive use of 'normal' bows against them.

If, when the 'normal' bow and the medieval crossbow were both available, and the crossbow was neither less expensive to make nor took much less training than a 'normal' bow, it is very difficult to find an important army that chose to feature the bow, doesn't that rtell you something?
The medieval choice was crossbow vs. longbow.
The counter argument, and it is a fair one, is that in the late medieval era the most dangerous opponents were heavily armoured. But this is far less clear for the Crusades, Bouvines periods.
So yes, this would suggest to me that while military history is an ebb and flow rather than a linear progression (Alexander would have done just fine on either side at Hastings, for example, 1400 years after his era), there were certain watershed technologies after which the old technology largely disappeared- chariot to cavalry, stirrup/couched lance, and plate armour are all givens, but i might add bow to longbow/crossbow.

[ShrubMiK]

Yep, agreed.

There are a lot of problems along those lines though in any ruleset that covers such a long period with fairly generic and simple rules, and FoG is certainly no exception.

I suppose the authors would probably argue that if you are playing an anachronistic matchup you have to be prepared for some reality disconnects in your game.

[grahambriggs]

I quite like the idea of early crossbows with a simple 'pull and latch' mechanisms being counted as 'bow'. Likely to be a similar effect, I'd have thought.

[philqw78]

I quite like the idea of early crossbows with a simple 'pull and latch' mechanisms being counted as 'bow'. Likely to be a similar effect, I'd have thought.

But a slower RoF

[ShrubMiK]

Yeah, but perhaps close enough? Maybe a bit more penetrating power, and maybe a bit more accuracy, to compenstate for the lower RoF and produce broadly similar effect.

The bow category already includes "normal" bows of significantly differing characteristics.

And we don't get overly concerned in FoG about the differences between pilum and framea, for example.

[philqw78]

I quite like the idea of early crossbows with a simple 'pull and latch' mechanisms being counted as 'bow'. Likely to be a similar effect, I'd have thought.

IIRC the classical greeks had them, gatropods or some other French sounding name. I assume they are in with the greek archers and slingers as they don't get crossbows.

[jkbrookfield]

I am no expert on ancient and medieval weapons. I've always been confused about the differences in efectiveness between bows and crossbows. I've always wondered why use crossbows at all if they are not as good. I was reading recently and got an answer. It takes a long time to train a good bowman...however it only takes a few days to train a unit of crossbowmen. Even if they are not as effective as a group of bowmen, the advantage of cost and time would be an important reason to field them.

[philqw78]

Made the chinese happy, they had lots of men to train